57 References
10. The NHS Constitution. 2010. http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/
NHSConstitution/Documents/nhs-constitution-interactive-version-march-2010.pdf . Accessed January 2012.
11. Information Commissioner’s Of fi ce. Subject access to health records by members of the pub- lic. 2010. http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/sector_guides/health.aspx . Accessed January 2012.
12. Royal College of General Practitioners. RCGP records access guide for GPs: sharing records with patients – an evolving process. 2010, v1. http://www.rcgp.org.uk/pdf/Health_Informatics_
RecordAccessGPGuide.pdf . Accessed January 2012.
13. Department of Health, Royal College of General Practitioners, British Medical Association. The good practice guidelines for GP electronic patient records. 2011, v4, p. 174. http://www.connect- ingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/infogov/links/gpelec2011.pdf . Accessed January 2012.
14. Shane R. Computerised physician order entry: challenges and opportunities. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2002;59:286–8.
15. Graez I, Reed M, et al. Care coordination and electronic health records: connecting clinicians.
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009;2009:208.
16. Khoury AT. Support of quality and business goals by an ambulatory automated medical record system in Kaiser Permanente of Ohio. Eff Clin Pract. 1998;1:73–82.
17. Marshall PD, Chin HL The effects of an electronic medical record on patient care: clinician attitudes in a large HMO. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 1998:150–4.
18. Scott RT, Rundall TG, et al. Kaiser Permanente’s experience of implementing an electronic medical record: a qualitative study. Br Med J. 2005;331:1313–6.
19. Simonaitis L, Belsito A, et al. Aggregation of pharmacy dispensing data into a uni fi ed patient medication history. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. Nov 6, 2008:1135.
20. Smith B. Presented at the guild of Healthcare Pharmacists/United Kingdom clinical pharmacy association Information Technology Interest Group (ITIG) Seminar, Birmingham, Nov 2009.
http://www.ghp.org.uk/ContentFiles/ghpitig0911e.pps .
21. Boockvar KS, Livote EE, et al. Electronic health records and adverse drug events after patient transfer. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19:e16.
22. Hurdle JF, Weir CR, et al. Critical gaps in the world’s largest electronic medical record: ad hoc nursing narratives and invisible adverse drug events. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003;2003:
309–12.
23. Smith DH, Perrin N, et al. The impact of prescribing safety alerts for elderly persons in an electronic medical record: an interrupted time series evaluation. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:
1098–104.
24. Orrico KB. Sources and types of discrepancies between electronic medical records and actual outpatient medication use. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008;14:626–31.
25. Mohamed IN, Helms PJ, et al. Using primary care prescribing databases for pharmacovigi- lance. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71:244–9.
26. Buck MD, Atreja A, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in outpatient prac- tices: prevalence and patient characteristics based on electronic health records. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2009;7:84–92.
27. Roten I, Marty S, et al. Electronic screening of medical records to detect inpatients at risk of drug-related problems. Pharm World Sci. 2010;32:103–7.
28. Berbatis CG, Sunderland VB. Linked electronic medication systems in community pharma- cies for preventing pseudoephedrine diversion: a review of internation practice and analysis of results in Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2009;28:586–91.
29. Frenzel JE. Using electronic medical records to teach patient-centered care. Am J Pharm Educ.
2010;74(71).
30. Santana S, Lausen B, et al. Online communications between doctors and patients in Europe:
status and perspectives. J Med Internet Res. 2010;12:e20 Accessed January 2012.
31. Montelius E, Astrand B, et al. Individuals appreciate having their medication record on the web: a survey of attitudes to a national pharmacy register. J Med Internet Res. 2008;10:e35.
32. Roblin DW, Houston TK, et al. Disparities in use of a personal health record in a Managed Care Organisation. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(5):683–9.
33. Singleton P, Pagliari C, et al. Critical issues for electronic health records: considerations from an expert workshop, Wellcome Trust/Nuf fi eld Trust, London, 2007.
34. Barnet J, Jennings H. Pharmacy information systems in Canada. Stud Health Technol Inform.
2009;143:131–5.
35. Linder JA, Schnipper JL, et al. Electronic health record feedback to improve antibiotic pre- scribing for acute respiratory infections. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16:e311–9.
36. EC Information Society & Media. The socio-economic impact of intra-operable electronic health record (EHR) and e-prescribing systems in Europe and beyond: fi nal study report.
2009.
37. Brennan N, Mattick K, et al. The map of medicine: a review of evidence for its impact on healthcare. Health Info Libr J. 2011;28:93–100.
38. Smith L, McGowan L, Moss-Barclay C, Wheater J, Knass D, Chrystyn H. An investigation of hospital-generated pharmaceutical care when patients are discharged home from hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;44(2):163–5.
39. Blagburn J, Acomb C. Implementing and evaluating evidence based clinical pharmacy for older people admitted to a secondary care trust . Presented at UKCPA. 2008.
40. Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. Guidance on recording interventions. 2006.
Available from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, 1 Lambeth High Street, London, SE7 4JN, UK 41. Schnipper JL, Hamann C, et al. Effect of an electronic medication reconciliation application and process redesign on potential adverse drug events: a cluster randomised trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:771–80.
59 S. Goundrey-Smith, Information Technology in Pharmacy,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4471-2780-2_3, © Springer-Verlag London 2013
Introduction
Electronic prescribing involves the use of computer systems to facilitate the pre- scription, supply and administration of medicines within a hospital. Electronic pre- scribing (EP) systems are able to capture a full prescribing history for a patient in a transferrable manner, and open up the potential for use of databases and decision support tools to assist the prescriber in medicine selection. Over the last 10–20 years, EP systems have been developed and used in a number of countries around the world, but their use is by no means widespread.
However, due to sociopolitical developments on a global scale, healthcare pro- viders around the world are increasingly concerned with cost-effectiveness, the increased likelihood of litigation and the need for clinical governance and transpar- ency in healthcare processes. Consequently, there will be an increasing emphasis on the clinical application of information technology to help healthcare providers streamline their business processes and achieve outcome targets. For these reasons, there is an increasing interest in the bene fi ts of EP systems from both healthcare professionals and healthcare provider managers.
Elsewhere in Europe , regional and national healthcare IT programmes have been established to address population healthcare issues [ 1 ] . Over the last few years, the Connecting for Health IT programme for the National Health Service (NHS) in England , which ran from 2002 to 2010, has conducted some useful methodology and implementation support work with electronic prescribing in hospitals, but has not designed and delivered a full national solution for electronic prescribing, as fi rst envisaged [ 2 ] . Nevertheless, interest in electronic prescribing, in the UK, US and elsewhere, remains high because of the potential bene fi ts that it can deliver, in terms of patient safety and hospital ef fi ciencies.
Since electronic systems for medicine prescribing have been developed indepen- dently in different countries, under the auspices of different healthcare systems, it is inevitable that there will be variations in terminology. Furthermore, terms that are not synonymous may be used interchangeably or in an indiscriminate manner.